Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Megaupload, a popular file sharing site, has been shut down. Users will have to look for another site to post and send files.

From the article:

Quote

Four people from the Megaupload team were detained in New Zealand, after an extradition request from the US.

That ok, that site was so virus infested it was getting ridiculous.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I agree that it won't be a great loss...but I still don't like seeing stuff like this happen.

Heh, Im sure they already have a new name and ip address....make no mistake

PP

You take out one site and 10 more always pop up in its place...the record and movie companies just need to acknowledge that their old business model is dead and adapt to a changing marketplace; if they don't, they'll die out and have no one to blame but themselves.

Megaupload, a popular file sharing site, has been shut down. Users will have to look for another site to post and send files.

From the article:

Quote

Four people from the Megaupload team were detained in New Zealand, after an extradition request from the US.

That ok, that site was so virus infested it was getting ridiculous.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I agree that it won't be a great loss...but I still don't like seeing stuff like this happen.

Heh, Im sure they already have a new name and ip address....make no mistake

PP

You take out one site and 10 more always pop up in its place...the record and movie companies just need to acknowledge that their old business model is dead and adapt to a changing marketplace; if they don't, they'll die out and have no one to blame but themselves.

Blame yourself for your failures?!?!?!?!?! HERESY!!!!!!

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Where? I keep searching the web for it, but I can never seem to find any.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Where? I keep searching the web for it, but I can never seem to find any.

...as Sirius as Beetle Juice.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 09:42:31 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

All kidding aside, this is a serious issue for a variety of reasons, both domestic in America in terms of the scope of the First Amendment in the internet age (so much for 'original intent' analysis in my opinion - it won't help you out here....) and in terms of globalization and 'ownership' of intellectual property. One solution to protect copyright holders would be onerous taxation on internet usuage, the proceeds to be distributed among copyright holders. This would be neither practical, popular nor fair as it would likely cut off access to the internet for less affluent folks around the world - which would serve the interests of some governments quite well, I might add. Here is an analysis in today's Washington Post touching upon a variety of issues with this debate. Worth the read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/megaupload-shutdown-raises-new-internet-sharing-fears/2012/01/20/gIQATHRtEQ_story.html?hpid=z2

It is interesting that this issue cuts across traditional ideological territory as libertarian minded conservatives and progressives find themselves on the same side of the debate. The economic conservatives and traditional moneyed interests find themselves on the other side.

All kidding aside, this is a serious issue for a variety of reasons, both domestic in America in terms of the scope of the First Amendment in the internet age (so much for 'original intent' analysis in my opinion - it won't help you out here....) and in terms of globalization and 'ownership' of intellectual property. One solution to protect copyright holders would be onerous taxation on internet usuage, the proceeds to be distributed among copyright holders. This would be neither practical, popular nor fair as it would likely cut off access to the internet for less affluent folks around the world - which would serve the interests of some governments quite well, I might add. Here is an analysis in today's Washington Post touching upon a variety of issues with this debate. Worth the read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/megaupload-shutdown-raises-new-internet-sharing-fears/2012/01/20/gIQATHRtEQ_story.html?hpid=z2

It is interesting that this issue cuts across traditional ideological territory as libertarian minded conservatives and progressives find themselves on the same side of the debate. The economic conservatives and traditional moneyed interests find themselves on the other side.

I think an analysis of the founder's original intent is exactly what the debate about intellectual property needs. Until around 1990 there was never a law against freely giving away information, you could always copy a book whether it was copyrighted or not, it was only illegal to sell copyrighted material for which you did not own the copyright. So there's the dividing line between copyright and free speech; copyright is merely an economic right to sell the product, the right to distribute should fall under the first amendment.

There is something called Fair Use, in which you can make copies in small numbers if you need them for a project or something. For instance, if you're doing a school report, you can include some photos or quotes from books, if you credit the source. You cannot, however, mass-produce a copyrighted work in such quantities that you would be essentially giving it away to the entire public for free. There is such a thing as abuse even of freedoms. Otherwise, no one could sell anything.

There is something called Fair Use, in which you can make copies in small numbers if you need them for a project or something. For instance, if you're doing a school report, you can include some photos or quotes from books, if you credit the source. You cannot, however, mass-produce a copyrighted work in such quantities that you would be essentially giving it away to the entire public for free. There is such a thing as abuse even of freedoms. Otherwise, no one could sell anything.

Yes, but that has only been the case for the last 20 years. Before 'fair use' involved nearly all non-commercial use -- not just academic use, satire, and exceedingly short ex-scripts -- including making backup copies, making copies for your friend, even making copies for random strangers, just so long as you did not profit from the endeavor (unless you hold the copyright, of course).

As for being able to make money off your product, it should be the responsibility of a company to adapt their monetization strategy to the realities of the market and society not the responsibility of the state to impose draconian and unenforceable laws to help companies keep an old failing business model. Musicians and other artists were able to make money before the advent of electronic recording media, they should be able to find a way to make money in this age of the internet (and many are making money, it's just that the old paradigm doesn't work as well and needs to be adapted for modern times).

There is something called Fair Use, in which you can make copies in small numbers if you need them for a project or something. For instance, if you're doing a school report, you can include some photos or quotes from books, if you credit the source. You cannot, however, mass-produce a copyrighted work in such quantities that you would be essentially giving it away to the entire public for free. There is such a thing as abuse even of freedoms. Otherwise, no one could sell anything.

Yes, but that has only been the case for the last 20 years. Before 'fair use' involved nearly all non-commercial use -- not just academic use, satire, and exceedingly short ex-scripts -- including making backup copies, making copies for your friend, even making copies for random strangers, just so long as you did not profit from the endeavor (unless you hold the copyright, of course).

As for being able to make money off your product, it should be the responsibility of a company to adapt their monetization strategy to the realities of the market and society not the responsibility of the state to impose draconian and unenforceable laws to help companies keep an old failing business model. Musicians and other artists were able to make money before the advent of electronic recording media, they should be able to find a way to make money in this age of the internet (and many are making money, it's just that the old paradigm doesn't work as well and needs to be adapted for modern times).

It is interesting that both the right and the left are 'anti-intrusive government' - only defining the proper use of state power and 'intrusion' in different terms. Ron Paul is about as close to possessing a consistent 'anti-government' ideology with his brand of 'libertarianism', but in the realm of reality, such really pleases no one. That's what makes the 'alliance' in this issue so interesting from a political point of view.

Just like the definition of an 'activist' court - that's a court that rules against your position.

There is something called Fair Use, in which you can make copies in small numbers if you need them for a project or something. For instance, if you're doing a school report, you can include some photos or quotes from books, if you credit the source. You cannot, however, mass-produce a copyrighted work in such quantities that you would be essentially giving it away to the entire public for free. There is such a thing as abuse even of freedoms. Otherwise, no one could sell anything.

Yes, but that has only been the case for the last 20 years. Before 'fair use' involved nearly all non-commercial use -- not just academic use, satire, and exceedingly short ex-scripts -- including making backup copies, making copies for your friend, even making copies for random strangers, just so long as you did not profit from the endeavor (unless you hold the copyright, of course).

As for being able to make money off your product, it should be the responsibility of a company to adapt their monetization strategy to the realities of the market and society not the responsibility of the state to impose draconian and unenforceable laws to help companies keep an old failing business model. Musicians and other artists were able to make money before the advent of electronic recording media, they should be able to find a way to make money in this age of the internet (and many are making money, it's just that the old paradigm doesn't work as well and needs to be adapted for modern times).

It is interesting that both the right and the left are 'anti-intrusive government' - only defining the proper use of state power and 'intrusion' in different terms. Ron Paul is about as close to possessing a consistent 'anti-government' ideology with his brand of 'libertarianism', but in the realm of reality, such really pleases no one. That's what makes the 'alliance' in this issue so interesting from a political point of view.

Just like the definition of an 'activist' court - that's a court that rules against your position.